Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

Second Language Acquisition Name Course Instructor’s name Date: The acquisition of second language is mainly concerned with the process through which man learns a second language. In this case, second language is considered as any other language that is acquired in addition to the first language. However, it also incorporates the acquisition of the third, fourth or successive languages, regardless of it being considered as the acquisition of second language. Since the beginning of the concept of Second Language Acquisition, morph syntactic complexity has always been considered fundamental, despite the fact that the manner in which the complexity is measured and conceived has considerably revolutionized. For instance, previously, complexity was determined with regard to the level in which students of the second language delivered English grammatical morphemes, with regard to obligatory contexts in both writing and speech. However, a major disadvantage of applying this method is that it pays no attention to significant others applications, such as those that are concerned with targets. For example, if a leaner applied a morpheme to inapplicable areas, such an application would not be detracted from the student’s score. However, this inadequacy was addressed by the introduction of a more suitable target-like use (TLU) measure. The other area where morph syntactic complexity plays a significant function when it comes to acquisition of the second language applies to the investigation of the indefinable index of development for the second language. The measure of the utterance that was used by the first language acquisition researchers used cannot be availed, and that is the reason why there is no developmental yardstick that could be used to carry out a comparison of the students. However, the earlier studies provided chart L2 as an accurate approach to determine complexity. This approach uses determinants of length like clause or considers a standard amount of words for each T- unit. Complexity has resurfaced again in the current second language acquisition studies, in the context of determining progress in language tasks performance. Morphosyntactic measures of complexity are carried alongside lexical complexity, fluency and accuracy. This has resulted in additional comprehensive second language learner’s profile, besides illustrating the manner in which dissimilar dimensions interrelate for a given moment, and how such interrelations revolutionize while learning and using the language. Commonality of forms of language Development of language is an innovative process. According to Berko-Gleason, (57), current descriptions of language development on various cultures highlight the notion of systematic and orderly linguistic process, also considered as partial invention and partial imitation. Apart from being considered systematic and orderly, language development can as well be considered as complete, although somewhat complete. As it comes to the essential stages of accomplishments, consolidations and achievements, they are often subjected under re-organization, elaboration, addition and re-application (Durkin, et al. 40). Interlanguage Earlier efforts aimed at illustrating learner language made comparisons of the diverse languages and learner’s errors analysis. However, the applied approaches could forecast all the mistakes the students made as they attempt to acquire the second language. This therefore resulted in development of the interlanguage idea, which is described as an emerging system of language in the second language leaner’s mind. The inter-language ability of the student should not be considered a deficient version of the language that is full of random mistakes. It should not as well be considered as a language that relies on the mistakes established from the student’s first language. This is a language of its own and contains systematic rules. Aspects of language can be viewed from the interlanguage perspective, for instance, lexicon, phonology, pragmatics and grammar. The process of interlanguages creation is influenced by three different processes: Language transfer-almost all learners refer to their mother tongue to enhance the creation of the language system, which in essence should not be taken as a mistake, since this is a procedure that all students have to undertake. Overgeneralization- the ideas contained in the acquisition of the second language is often applied by learners, something that is often disregarded by the native speakers. Simplification-apparently, all learners often apply a highly simplified from of the second language, comparable to the speech in pidgins or by children. This can be considered as being connected to linguistic universals. Most of the contemporary SLA studies incorporate the application of the concept of interlanguage. The study of interlanguage is often done under two key fields. First, there is need to ascertain the student’s interlanguage ability, elucidating the procedure through which this grows from the time of inception through to the stage of full development. Just like the linguistic competence of the adult natives and child first language learners cannot be directly determined, so is interlanguage competence. Information regarding interlanguage competence is derived indirectly by examining interlanguage performance data. Some of the examples of performance data include grammatical judgments, comprehension data and production data like experimentally extracted speech data and spontaneous. The most commonly used data in SLA research is the production data, though from the diverse kinds of this data, the spontaneous speech facts is mostly preferred. Selinker (114), gave a proposal on interlanguage Hypothesis, and highlighted that the psychologically related information of the second language students can be determined through the behavioral events since almost all students convey whatever they have understood using the language they are being taught, other words, attempting meaningful performance using a second language. Significant developments regarding second language developmental sequences, made in the 1970s, were basically concerned with the spontaneous speech models collected longitudinally. The application of longitudinal data declined in popularity in the 1980s. This was partly because of time and financial limitations, and partly due to the use of spontaneous data in comparison with grammatical judgment data and experimentally extracted production data. From the early 1990s, as the second language researchers tried to establish the second language student’s mental representations, began applying longitudinal spontaneous communication information again. An illustration of this is in the current second language acquisition studies conducted in the generative structure that use facts acquired samples of longitudinal communication that will be applied to deal with the divisive matter with regard to issues such as abstract syntactic features and functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Most of the current studies rely on the already gathered information; inform of audio-taped that was collected during the 1970s. A major challenge encountered with the use of this information is that it can just be obtained in the form of transcripts, rather than the audio-recordings themselves. This therefore makes it difficult to independently check the transcripts in conjunction with the audio-recordings, making it hard to retrieve interlanguage intentions from such data. This could also result in the exclusive reliance on the explanations offered by the initial researchers. In addition, MacWhinney (38) claims that the available longitudinal second language facts are not open to the public, same as the CHILDES, hence making it challenging for the language acquisition researchers to conduct autonomous investigations of similar data set, as well as conducting cross-linguistic comparisons. Selinker proposed an assumption that underlies the interlanguage hypothesis (430). It states that interlanguage- at least partly dissimilar from target L2 and the native language – is therefore a linguistic system having its own right; this after all might be among the small number of points that have been settled upon by the Second Language Acquisition researchers. Such a fact implies that, interlanguage must be scrutinized in its own terms to facilitate the language learners’ linguistic capability in the L2 effectively. According to Bley-Vroman, this is a hard task to undertake, and as a result, during the earlier period and the current time, L2 research, have frequently submitted towards the comparative fallacy (560). Bley-Vorman also puts forward that, in interlanguage studies, the comparative fallacy which comes about as a result of apprehension by target language has the likelihood of having devastating impact on interlanguage analysis. Particularly, employment of analytical notions that are termed comparative to the target language design for instance error, and target like utilization are not likely to clarify existent of interlanguage proficiency. In contrast, with the intention of ascertaining serious advancement in interlanguage investigation, scholars must therefore center on linguistic descriptions building of students’ language which is capable of shedding some light on their own logic and particular properties. Some scholars such as Adjemian (1976) emphasized the significance of examining interlanguage separately as a linguistic scheme, to be precise, independently both as a native language system and also as a target language system. Nevertheless, this differed greatly from Bley- Vroman, as he talks about relative fallacy in investigations of interlanguage only in comparison with the target language system. The interlanguage idea is very essential while explaining the acquisition of Second Language or the bilingual learner language (Blanc and Hamers, 673). In definition, interlanguage is the outcome of interaction amongst diverse device aspects of language acquisition in different languages that develops concurrently. Most researchers in bilingual studies and second- language acquisition defines this linguistic behaviour the same. Larry Selinker was the first scholar to coin the term in 1972, and since then, other researchers have expanded the concept significantly. Blanc and Hamers (654) argues that, amid options of various languages there subsists for the bilingual orator an entire variety of approaches that comprise of the alteration of each scheme and the comparative employment of all. Interlanguage is viewed as an adaptive procedure by most individuals whereby the orator attempts to address the interlocutors LI even though he/she has little competency in it. According to Selinker (429), the approach employs such concepts as reduction, simplification, overgeneralization, restructurings, transfer, substitutions, and omissions. Additionally, interlanguage is delineated by Selinker as a theoretical construct that inspires the attempts of second language acquisition scholars to categorize advancement stages wherein LI students passes through while seeking L2 competency. Unlike other scholars who argue that learners progresses from zero to ideal acquaintance of target language, Selinker argues that, such learners usually undergo a sequence of developmental stages before arriving at target language proficiency. Most individuals term the notion interlanguage as dynamic, permeable, and systematic. It might go through the process of relative change and fossilization; however, it may also reveal and underlying cognitive process though it contradicts that which is linguistically acceptable. According to Anderson (1984) Interlanguage evolves from nativization to denativization process, laying emphasis on target language acquirement. It is clear that, the controversy between IL researchers is therefore the scope to which its properties and progress are determined by particular acquisition contexts. Minority of these researchers subscribe to the identity hypothesis which puts forth that, the entire language attainment is channeled by the similar linguo-cognitive2 standards. Another category of researchers according to Fathman (194) judged against the acquisition of this L2 phenomenon from an informal acquisition context. They did so by realizing that there was no significant difference in acquisition order, thereby concluding the alternative causation factor does not hold any measurable impact on acquiring knowledge in a second language. There seems to be several literature pertaining to problems associated with second language acquisition which are if only for lack of better words, unnecessary. This is because there is a difference in how people acquire language and the presupposition that there is a solitary system governing this acquisition is invalid. Wade gives credence to this notion by showing what Kiel found in a project evaluating how some children adopted two languages under different conditions (78). It is plausible and sometimes attractive to consider one language acquisition as comprising of constructs based on abilities borne from one’s psychology and neurology. However, subsequent acquisition of a second language does not have to follow the same pattern. Many have argued that the only way such a formula can hold is to base it on objective and well defined parameters which avoid bias based on universal stereotypes. This method allow the identification of both dependent and independent variables and how the first influences or modifies the latter and the impact this has on the whole evaluation of language acquisition. In addition, the above method impacts greatly on the process of second language adoption as deliberately organized in relation to the foreign or second language classroom. In the same way, care has to be taken not to make hasty generalization from acquisition regularity as observed in one specific L2 subsystem is acquired. In addition, the findings of this study have a more practical effect on the area of second language acquisition that is agreed to be deliberately organized in relation to the foreign or second language classroom. In the same way, care has to be taken not to make hasty generalization from acquisition regularity as observed in one specific L2 subsystem is acquired. Conclusion According to the morpheme above, formal systems such as morphology and phonology as acquisition processes may vary against the ones adopted due to different functionality such as discourse rule and speech act. In addition, the incorporation of different methodologies of second language acquisition and their integration with theories concerned with language adoption can only be done by assuming that such methodologies can be analyzed in their own rights. Works Cited Allwright, Dick & Hanks, Judith. The Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan DeKeyser, 2009. Andersen, R. & Shirai, Y. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1994. Berko-Gleason, J. The development of language. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1993. Durkin, K. et al. Language development in the school years. Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA, 1986. Robert (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University PressGass, 1998. Schmidt, R. "Attention". In Robinson, Peter. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Stephen. The Power of Reading, Second Edition. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited, 2004. MacWhinney, B. "Extending the Competition Model". International Journal of Bilingualism 9: 2005. Susan; Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: RoutledgeKrashen, 2009. Read More